For me, one of the elephants in the room that is the larger discussion about "third world" outsourcing and manufacture, is the other side of the dynamic: What

For me, one of the elephants in the room that is the larger discussion about "third world" outsourcing and manufacture, is the other side of the dynamic: What is happening in portions of the "first world". That is, the fear in the first world. (Note: I'm in the U.S.) The first world build up, both deliberately and circumstantially (e.g. World War II), a fairly strong system of profit-sharing and workforce representation and safety. Then, increasing geographic mobility (physical, and communication) provided means of operating portions or the entirety of a business outside of that scope, while maintaining the first world market/destination for finished product. Given that much of the first world was in one form or another "democratic", at that point, those populations faced a choice. Erect barriers to insure the propagation of those protections within their societies, but at perhaps the expense of less individual, immediate wealth -- at least, as measured in objects possessed. Or allow this "outsourcing", undermining domestic production and attendant protections in favor of individual gains -- short term gains, for those not in a position of major equity or enabling and so profiting off of the inter-societal transfers. In my perspective, barring a regression, at this point we are headed towards a world society as well as economy. However, the timeframes are still such that individuals can end up "losers" with regard to opportunities available or lost during their productive lifespans. In the U.S., for example, many people are "losing", right now. The question arises: Has what has happened been the best way forward that was possible? Or could the U.S. et al. have maintained greater barriers while still enabling progress? The ideo of "lifting up" the third world, instead of "racing to the lowest common denominator"? I, for one, don't know the answer to that. Personally, though, I would have liked to try harder for it. Many people in the U.S. are scared, and outraged, and fearful, and many other things, of what they see -- or what is reported -- in China and other places, because behind and beyond the immediate situation, they see or perhaps intuit at some level their own future. Maybe in the 80's and even 90's, many people here just felt it was wrong that another person be treated like that. And they compared those circumstances to their own and wished the latter whole-heartedly for these other people. Now, many people are just plain scared. If they're not already living in this future of decreasing expectations. I think that is the, or at least one of, the elephants in the room, in this entire discussion. We were supposed to be improving the lives of these folk. But now it looks to (rhetorical) me that it was, is at my and our own expense. I'm not arguing for one interpretation or the other, here. But I would like to see this perspective -- this view from "the other side", if I've seen and understood it at least partially correctly -- added to the conversation. And, to loop back to what I mentioned earlier, this happened in the context of "democratic" first world societies. (However imperfect that democracy might be.) So... in casting about for blame, if such is to be sought and found at all, I don't think those populations can simply point to business executives and "corrupt" politicians for the answer. Whether citizens voted, or didn't bother, they were and are part of the choice.